Miss Demeanors
New member
I watch Rosie. I have heard her say that the NRA doesnt want to compromise with any suggestions. What are these suggestions that she is referring to? I would like to hear the other side of the story. Thanks! 
Could someone please tell me.....
- Thread starter Miss Demeanors
- Start date
The NRA has compromised on many things. Specifically , the instant check system that is currently in effect is a result of an NRA compromise. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was a huge compromise also. The problem that the NRA and pro-gun people in general is that once the compromises have been reached and inacted the anti's begin calling for more gun control, not being happy with the compromises. It is getting harder and harder to compromise as the pro-gunners are being pushed to the wall where no compromise will be possible, at that point Rosies statements will be true.
Miss Demeanors
New member
Hey your name looks familiar 
. So is everything that Rosie says false information? I like her alot but I dont think she should be saying things that she has no facts on. I didnt agree with her campaign to ban all guns, that I believe , is not fair. I just wonder where she is getting her information from. The information I get from you guys seems more logical?
. So is everything that Rosie says false information? I like her alot but I dont think she should be saying things that she has no facts on. I didnt agree with her campaign to ban all guns, that I believe , is not fair. I just wonder where she is getting her information from. The information I get from you guys seems more logical?many of the compromises that seem "so reasonable" to the other side, in fact are not , and would be ludicrous if applied to other products. example ; one gun a month, why not one shirt a month. "assault weapons",
are another rallying cry. true assault weapons are military issue selective fire(which means the are machine guns) they are already strictly controlled ,and very expensive to own. relatively few people are willing to jump thru all the hoops to own one.magazines holding over 10 rounds of ammunition-just a number game. like a car that goes 150 mph, but there is no place to drive it.registration so we can track criminal use? supreme court says criminals can't be forced to register, or prosecuted for not doing so, it violates their rights.
there are many more ,but our biggest concerns are that with 20,000 gun laws in effect in the US now, many of which are seemingly ignored by prosecutors, is who additional laws will affect. we feel that they are restricting law abiding citizens while ignoring the fact that criminals don't obey the law to begin with. none of the measures proposed would have changed anything at any of the school shootings i am aware of, as all of the perpetrators had stolen their weapons and all of them violated a long list of existing laws, yet there is a rush to DO SOMETHING , ANYTHING.
many gun owners are collectors as well as shooters. the idea of having to pay large sums of money to keep and enjoy their possessions is not pleasant. gun owners come from all walks of life, and the vast majority have not and will never commit a crime with or without a gun. punisishing all for the actions of a few is not reasonable.
it would be like charging you with a crime for keeping jewelery in your home because some one might be tempted to steal it.
none of us wants to see criminals have access to guns, or kids or any one else who shouldn't have them.it is already illegal for these people to have a gun. will another law make it more so? the president says 400,00 people have illegally tried to buy guns, yet only a few have been charged and convicted.why? why are existing laws not enforced? few prosecutors use the legal remedies already in place, why do we need more?
we have already given up mail order sales , interstate sales,restricted ownership and taxed heavily certain guns,submitted voluntary statements of eligibility'waiting periods in many areas,ownership of many guns because they apparently "look evil", even though they are mechanically the same as others that have a more conventional appearance, others because they don't meet certain "sporting criteria" and so can't be imported, ,,the list is long.
are another rallying cry. true assault weapons are military issue selective fire(which means the are machine guns) they are already strictly controlled ,and very expensive to own. relatively few people are willing to jump thru all the hoops to own one.magazines holding over 10 rounds of ammunition-just a number game. like a car that goes 150 mph, but there is no place to drive it.registration so we can track criminal use? supreme court says criminals can't be forced to register, or prosecuted for not doing so, it violates their rights.
there are many more ,but our biggest concerns are that with 20,000 gun laws in effect in the US now, many of which are seemingly ignored by prosecutors, is who additional laws will affect. we feel that they are restricting law abiding citizens while ignoring the fact that criminals don't obey the law to begin with. none of the measures proposed would have changed anything at any of the school shootings i am aware of, as all of the perpetrators had stolen their weapons and all of them violated a long list of existing laws, yet there is a rush to DO SOMETHING , ANYTHING.
many gun owners are collectors as well as shooters. the idea of having to pay large sums of money to keep and enjoy their possessions is not pleasant. gun owners come from all walks of life, and the vast majority have not and will never commit a crime with or without a gun. punisishing all for the actions of a few is not reasonable.
it would be like charging you with a crime for keeping jewelery in your home because some one might be tempted to steal it.
none of us wants to see criminals have access to guns, or kids or any one else who shouldn't have them.it is already illegal for these people to have a gun. will another law make it more so? the president says 400,00 people have illegally tried to buy guns, yet only a few have been charged and convicted.why? why are existing laws not enforced? few prosecutors use the legal remedies already in place, why do we need more?
we have already given up mail order sales , interstate sales,restricted ownership and taxed heavily certain guns,submitted voluntary statements of eligibility'waiting periods in many areas,ownership of many guns because they apparently "look evil", even though they are mechanically the same as others that have a more conventional appearance, others because they don't meet certain "sporting criteria" and so can't be imported, ,,the list is long.
Everything that is "reasonable" today becomes "the first step" tomorrow.
Whenever a national or local gun control law is passed, it becomes the stepping stone to more restrictive laws. Sen. Feinstein said it best on "60 Minutes". She stated that if she had the votes, she would have pushed for the confiscation of all "assault weapons" when she got the federal law passed in 1994.
After the latest round of high jinks in D.C. Sen. Boxer came right out and said that the new proposed laws will be "a good first step" towards passing new gun control laws.
Every one of these laws will not do one thing to stop criminals, but will serve to disarm law abiding civilians.
Whenever a national or local gun control law is passed, it becomes the stepping stone to more restrictive laws. Sen. Feinstein said it best on "60 Minutes". She stated that if she had the votes, she would have pushed for the confiscation of all "assault weapons" when she got the federal law passed in 1994.
After the latest round of high jinks in D.C. Sen. Boxer came right out and said that the new proposed laws will be "a good first step" towards passing new gun control laws.
Every one of these laws will not do one thing to stop criminals, but will serve to disarm law abiding civilians.
Miss Demeanors:
I don't think everything that Rosie says is false information, but a lot of it is. Where does she get it? Can't say for certain, but I suspect that it is from groups such as HCI.
Please, if you learn anything from comming here is that the debate is not about guns, but rather who has the ultimate power to rule, the people or government. I know that this sounds far fetched to you right now, but please give it some thought.
Our founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment for a reason. The reason was to give the people a last means of defense from the government they had just created in the event that it should ever turn to tyranny. For anyone who has studied our founding documents this truth is undeniable. What brought me forward in this debate was the fact that all of our lower federal courts have ruled that the second amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the states have the right to maintain a militia.
This scares me a lot. Why? Why would the very government from whom the 2nd was written to protect us from, trying to redefine the meaning of those words? The only answers I have ever been able to come up with all scare me.
Richard
I don't think everything that Rosie says is false information, but a lot of it is. Where does she get it? Can't say for certain, but I suspect that it is from groups such as HCI.
Please, if you learn anything from comming here is that the debate is not about guns, but rather who has the ultimate power to rule, the people or government. I know that this sounds far fetched to you right now, but please give it some thought.
Our founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment for a reason. The reason was to give the people a last means of defense from the government they had just created in the event that it should ever turn to tyranny. For anyone who has studied our founding documents this truth is undeniable. What brought me forward in this debate was the fact that all of our lower federal courts have ruled that the second amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the states have the right to maintain a militia.
This scares me a lot. Why? Why would the very government from whom the 2nd was written to protect us from, trying to redefine the meaning of those words? The only answers I have ever been able to come up with all scare me.
Richard
Miss D. - Rosie probably has some good information about eBay, or Beanie babies, or comedy. But when it comes to gun control, I personally don't think she is ill-informed, I believe she is un-informed. And what's worse, she refuses to get informed, unlike the two of you. She only speaks with her heart not her brain. And I do believe she has a good heart. It's just that her brain isn't engaged when she speaks about a subject she knows nothing about and which is near and dear to so many millions of Americans. I also completely ignore the many ad hominem arguments thrown at her, but I do understand where the venom comes from.
Miss Demeanors
New member
Ok I completley see your points. I think you are right that the people should have the power over the guns and feel that the government should take the power to bring down the criminals. It seems to me that the real problem is that the laws are not enforced enough. If criminals are getting away with so much then I dont see how that should affect a law abiding citizen. I have heard that information about how little arrests there really are. That should be what we really need to look at and not the people who already own guns. I think if the exsiting laws are enforced that would help more than adding more laws. whats the point if they are not enforced? I have to say, I am with you guys on this one, taking away guns will make matters worse and there seems to already be enough gun laws. The enforcement is what is going to help. Education is also a key tool.
Sorry, this is reeeeeally loooooooong...
I don't think Rosie is attempting to be deceptive. I don't agree with her opinions at all, but I am sure that she comes by them honestly.
Jeff is on the money... the waiting periods of the Brady Bill were a compromise: Gun buyers agreed to a waiting period as long as it would be replaced by an instant check system (as occurred at the beginning of this year). It was only a couple of weeks after the instant check system started up that gun control advocates started demanding the reinstatement of waiting periods. Another example of compromise is 1968, when the government required a federal firearms license to engage in the business of buying and selling guns. There were assurances that this license was not needed by ordinary guys and gals that weren't in the firearms business, but were simply buying or selling their own personal property. Nowaddays, as you are probably aware, the anti-gun people are calling this licensing exception (a result of the compromise in '68) the "gun show loophole", and demanding that all firearms transfers be made under the provisions of the federal firearms license. It is sad but true that no matter what "reasonable restrictions" gun owners agree to, the anti-gun folks demand more and more. It reminds me of the way the native Americans were treated by the invading Europeans: they signed treaty after treaty, trying to live in peace, but the white people were never satisfied, and could never be trusted to keep their word.
That is why the NRA and other gun-rights groups seem so uncompromising... they have been burned repeatedly since compromising on the National Firearms Act in 1934. So really, Rosie is correct... pro-gun folks aren't interested in compromising.
The stuff that anti-gun folks say is rarely an outright falsehood, but that doesn't mean it is true. Here are some examples of deceptive statements that are technically not lies:
1) "studies show that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder": There was indeed a study that came to this conclusion, but it has been entirely discredited for a long time. In fact, there have been more comprehensive, more objective, and more recent studies that reach the opposite conclusion. The statement is false, but it isn't exactly a lie.
2) "countries such as Great Britain, Germany, and Japan have much lower murder rates, and strict gun control": This statement avoids mentioning places like Switzerland, which is a very peaceful place even though the entire population has a true assault rifle at their fingertips. It also lumps all 50 states in the USA together, which doesn't make much sense, since murder rates vary wildly from state to state. Vermont has almost no firearms restrictions, but it's crime rate is lower than the cited European nations. Similarly, Washington DC and Illinois both restrict firearms severely, yet have phenomenally high rates of violent crime. Further, the murder epidemic in the USA strikes black and hispanic folks almost exclusively. White folks in the USA have murder rates comparable to European nations, and own guns more often than members of the various minority communities. Because it mentions only the instances where few guns correspond to low crime rates, and ignores all of the counter-examples, the statement is deceptive but still technically true.
3) "holders of concealed pistol permits commit XXX number of crimes per year, and are therefore a danger to society": The crime rate among people with concealed weapon permits is very low, as we would expect in a group of people who have gone out of their way to comply with an easily-ignored (and often completely unenforced) law. By not mentioning the crime rate in the general population for comparison, this statement gives the erroneous impression that a whole lot of people with pistol permits are robbing convenience stores and shooting strangers over traffic disputes. The truth is that the crime rate among permit holders is far lower than that of the general population, and in some cases, lower than the crime rate among sworn police officers.
I am pleased but not surprised to read your statement that the pro-gun arguments seem to be more logical than the anti-gun arguments. The pro-gun position is supported by facts and logic, whereas the anti-gun position relies on emotional appeal. Unfortunately it is very easy to fit an emotional appeal into a "sound bite", while a reasoned out argument takes a lot longer and requires the listener to invest some thought. Congratulations on being the kind of person who recognizes the truth when she hears it!
I don't think Rosie is attempting to be deceptive. I don't agree with her opinions at all, but I am sure that she comes by them honestly.
Jeff is on the money... the waiting periods of the Brady Bill were a compromise: Gun buyers agreed to a waiting period as long as it would be replaced by an instant check system (as occurred at the beginning of this year). It was only a couple of weeks after the instant check system started up that gun control advocates started demanding the reinstatement of waiting periods. Another example of compromise is 1968, when the government required a federal firearms license to engage in the business of buying and selling guns. There were assurances that this license was not needed by ordinary guys and gals that weren't in the firearms business, but were simply buying or selling their own personal property. Nowaddays, as you are probably aware, the anti-gun people are calling this licensing exception (a result of the compromise in '68) the "gun show loophole", and demanding that all firearms transfers be made under the provisions of the federal firearms license. It is sad but true that no matter what "reasonable restrictions" gun owners agree to, the anti-gun folks demand more and more. It reminds me of the way the native Americans were treated by the invading Europeans: they signed treaty after treaty, trying to live in peace, but the white people were never satisfied, and could never be trusted to keep their word.
That is why the NRA and other gun-rights groups seem so uncompromising... they have been burned repeatedly since compromising on the National Firearms Act in 1934. So really, Rosie is correct... pro-gun folks aren't interested in compromising.
The stuff that anti-gun folks say is rarely an outright falsehood, but that doesn't mean it is true. Here are some examples of deceptive statements that are technically not lies:
1) "studies show that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder": There was indeed a study that came to this conclusion, but it has been entirely discredited for a long time. In fact, there have been more comprehensive, more objective, and more recent studies that reach the opposite conclusion. The statement is false, but it isn't exactly a lie.
2) "countries such as Great Britain, Germany, and Japan have much lower murder rates, and strict gun control": This statement avoids mentioning places like Switzerland, which is a very peaceful place even though the entire population has a true assault rifle at their fingertips. It also lumps all 50 states in the USA together, which doesn't make much sense, since murder rates vary wildly from state to state. Vermont has almost no firearms restrictions, but it's crime rate is lower than the cited European nations. Similarly, Washington DC and Illinois both restrict firearms severely, yet have phenomenally high rates of violent crime. Further, the murder epidemic in the USA strikes black and hispanic folks almost exclusively. White folks in the USA have murder rates comparable to European nations, and own guns more often than members of the various minority communities. Because it mentions only the instances where few guns correspond to low crime rates, and ignores all of the counter-examples, the statement is deceptive but still technically true.
3) "holders of concealed pistol permits commit XXX number of crimes per year, and are therefore a danger to society": The crime rate among people with concealed weapon permits is very low, as we would expect in a group of people who have gone out of their way to comply with an easily-ignored (and often completely unenforced) law. By not mentioning the crime rate in the general population for comparison, this statement gives the erroneous impression that a whole lot of people with pistol permits are robbing convenience stores and shooting strangers over traffic disputes. The truth is that the crime rate among permit holders is far lower than that of the general population, and in some cases, lower than the crime rate among sworn police officers.
I am pleased but not surprised to read your statement that the pro-gun arguments seem to be more logical than the anti-gun arguments. The pro-gun position is supported by facts and logic, whereas the anti-gun position relies on emotional appeal. Unfortunately it is very easy to fit an emotional appeal into a "sound bite", while a reasoned out argument takes a lot longer and requires the listener to invest some thought. Congratulations on being the kind of person who recognizes the truth when she hears it!
Jeff Thomas
New member
Miss D, you ask the question that so many others should be asking. A former good friend of mine and I had a difficult luncheon conversation about 2 months ago. I tried to explain my frustrations about the state of current firearms debate, and he told me he thought the NRA had a 'marketing problem', and they should compromise more. He saw them as being unreasonable about 'cop-killer' bullets, assault weapons and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. This very intelligent man had bought into the illogic of the anti-self defense lobby - and questioned it almost not at all. I don't think our friendship will recover from this dispute.
But, step back a moment and logically consider the truth of such talk. For example, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Why would anyone, in their right mind, ever possibly need such firepower?! Well, even the question is rather interesting. Consider the cars we see on our streets. Why does anyone NEED a Jaguar or Mercedes? For that matter, why does anyone NEED a home with 10,000 square feet? We could go on and on with this logic. One of the beauties of America was that we each had the freedom to make such choices. Where else in America do you hear this 'need' argument without it being followed closely by someone expressing disgust with socialism?
But some will say that freedom shouldn't extend to firearms, and again, why would anyone need more than 10 rounds? As my former friend said 'if you can't get it done in 10 rounds, you're probably dead anyway'. Well, try this - let's tell all civilians, the military and our LEO's that NO ONE can have a high capacity magazine. After all - no one needs them. What's that? The military and LEO's say they need them? Well ... why? Oh ... because they're facing bad guys ("BG's"), eh? You mean the same bad guys that give me, my family and other honest civilians concern?
So, are civilians supposed to be better shots than LEO's? Are our lives worth less? Of course, we are less likely to meet these BG's. But, until they started preying on civilians, they probably weren't even known as BG's, right? And, obviously civilians are more often the victim than LEO's.
So, just using that one example, and even from only a self defense argument, their ban on hi-cap mag's is not really logical. Like most of their arguments, it ignores the comparison of cost and benefit. So, if we allow civilians to have high capacity magazines, they will benefit by being better equipped to defend themselves, and fewer honest civilians will be victimized. OTOH, the cost will be that we may have an occasional nut case who will have more bullets available.
We could also discuss the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and how the US v. Miller case actually made an argument for civilians to have military-style weapons. But we can do that another day.
Please stay with us on TFL, go to every firearms web site you have time for - pro and anti. Read the arguments. Learn the facts - and there are facts ... not just feelings. Peruse the legislation that is offered. Soon I think you will begin to notice that the anti-self defense crowd is shrill and emotional in their arguments, and they lace those arguments with emotional fiction and distortions, instead of facts. Give it the 'smell test' as well - which side makes more common sense to you?
One last point - consider the word 'compromise'. What does it mean? It means each side gives something up in order to make a deal. The anti-self defense crowd doesn't see it that way. They think compromise in this case means they'll allow us to keep some firearms, if only they can enact some 'reasonable' reforms, and close a few more 'loopholes'. With logic as disingenuous as that, how much do you think we can trust their assurances and 'facts'?
Regards from AZ
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited June 23, 1999).]
But, step back a moment and logically consider the truth of such talk. For example, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Why would anyone, in their right mind, ever possibly need such firepower?! Well, even the question is rather interesting. Consider the cars we see on our streets. Why does anyone NEED a Jaguar or Mercedes? For that matter, why does anyone NEED a home with 10,000 square feet? We could go on and on with this logic. One of the beauties of America was that we each had the freedom to make such choices. Where else in America do you hear this 'need' argument without it being followed closely by someone expressing disgust with socialism?
But some will say that freedom shouldn't extend to firearms, and again, why would anyone need more than 10 rounds? As my former friend said 'if you can't get it done in 10 rounds, you're probably dead anyway'. Well, try this - let's tell all civilians, the military and our LEO's that NO ONE can have a high capacity magazine. After all - no one needs them. What's that? The military and LEO's say they need them? Well ... why? Oh ... because they're facing bad guys ("BG's"), eh? You mean the same bad guys that give me, my family and other honest civilians concern?
So, are civilians supposed to be better shots than LEO's? Are our lives worth less? Of course, we are less likely to meet these BG's. But, until they started preying on civilians, they probably weren't even known as BG's, right? And, obviously civilians are more often the victim than LEO's.
So, just using that one example, and even from only a self defense argument, their ban on hi-cap mag's is not really logical. Like most of their arguments, it ignores the comparison of cost and benefit. So, if we allow civilians to have high capacity magazines, they will benefit by being better equipped to defend themselves, and fewer honest civilians will be victimized. OTOH, the cost will be that we may have an occasional nut case who will have more bullets available.
We could also discuss the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and how the US v. Miller case actually made an argument for civilians to have military-style weapons. But we can do that another day.
Please stay with us on TFL, go to every firearms web site you have time for - pro and anti. Read the arguments. Learn the facts - and there are facts ... not just feelings. Peruse the legislation that is offered. Soon I think you will begin to notice that the anti-self defense crowd is shrill and emotional in their arguments, and they lace those arguments with emotional fiction and distortions, instead of facts. Give it the 'smell test' as well - which side makes more common sense to you?
One last point - consider the word 'compromise'. What does it mean? It means each side gives something up in order to make a deal. The anti-self defense crowd doesn't see it that way. They think compromise in this case means they'll allow us to keep some firearms, if only they can enact some 'reasonable' reforms, and close a few more 'loopholes'. With logic as disingenuous as that, how much do you think we can trust their assurances and 'facts'?
Regards from AZ
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited June 23, 1999).]
Miss Demeanors
New member
I have already been to quite a few of websites thanks to my pro-gun friends at Rosie. That is how I base my opinion, on facts. I can see the emotional part of it. I am a mom too and yes, I am concerned about these children. Yet I have acknowledged that you cant solve a problem by acting on emotion you must learn the facts whether they are to your liking or not. To be honest, I really do not know much about guns, nor some of the things you guys have mentioned. By listening to your information and checking out some sites I am learning, slowly, but surely. I live in Chicago, there is so much crime here like someone above had said. the only things I ever see on the news are who got shot today, what kid was standing in the line of fire, heck we even have police officers here shooting black people for pulling out a cell phone. Its all very confusing to me. I really hate the violence, I am not a violent person, as I am sure many of you arent. I am just trying to piece this big chaotic mess that is going on, one says this, one says that, this fact says one thing, that fact says another. It gets confusing to someone who has no clue about guns. Hang in there with me, I can learn, but apologize for not understanding some of your terms. I will stick around, the more knowledge the better!
Jeff Thomas
New member
Miss D, you are indeed a breath of fresh air on a day when I can certainly use one.
You hit it on the head - most of us here at TFL, and most firearms owners I have met are not violent people. We are responsible, freedom loving people who insist on taking responsibility for our lives. And, we insist that others take responsibility for their own lives as well.
Thank you for having the decency to work through this issue. Best wishes to you and your family.
You hit it on the head - most of us here at TFL, and most firearms owners I have met are not violent people. We are responsible, freedom loving people who insist on taking responsibility for our lives. And, we insist that others take responsibility for their own lives as well.
Thank you for having the decency to work through this issue. Best wishes to you and your family.
Miss Demeanors
New member
None of you people are from IL are you? I have yet to see a nice polite person here in Il, at least the ones I know. You all seem so friendly and I am not used to that. I really thought the progun friends at Rosie were very polite and now I can see where they are coming from! Thanks!
Miss Demeanors
New member
BTW, here is a link that I got from over at the Rosie boards, I'm sure many of you have already seen it but just thought I would share it with you: www.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/index.html
Hope that works!
Hope that works!
RepublicThunderbolt
New member
Bravo, Miss D.! You are to be commended for actually seeking information to base your opinion upon, rather than merely accepting the spoon-fed pabulum offered by the mass-media outlets. Odd about that crime in Chicago, though...I've heard you have really great anti-gun laws...*wink*!
May you continue to find illumination in you quest for enlightenment!
May you continue to find illumination in you quest for enlightenment!
"Odd about that crime in Chicago..."
Our neighbors over in Washington, D.C. have what is considered model gun control laws. But wait! Two completely innocent people were killed last week, so it must be working just fine - after all it could've been 5 killed. The D.C. justice system says it's ok to release the criminals from jail early, or not even send them to jail, because they must know it's against the law to own a gun, right?
Our neighbors over in Washington, D.C. have what is considered model gun control laws. But wait! Two completely innocent people were killed last week, so it must be working just fine - after all it could've been 5 killed. The D.C. justice system says it's ok to release the criminals from jail early, or not even send them to jail, because they must know it's against the law to own a gun, right?
Miss Demeanors
New member
God only know what our laws are here, whatever they may be it isnt working.
Miss. Demeanors,
If you come across terms or words that you do not understand, you have but to ask their meaning. We, I am sure I can speak for a large number of us, will be happy to explain what is meant. In fact I am willing to bet that we can even have you more confused than you were before you asked the the questions.
Stay with us, we can educate and entertain at the same time.
[This message has been edited by Jim V (edited June 23, 1999).]
If you come across terms or words that you do not understand, you have but to ask their meaning. We, I am sure I can speak for a large number of us, will be happy to explain what is meant. In fact I am willing to bet that we can even have you more confused than you were before you asked the the questions.
Stay with us, we can educate and entertain at the same time.
[This message has been edited by Jim V (edited June 23, 1999).]
I occasional get into discussions with my co-workers about gun control, and they never like what I have to say (all but one are ANTI-gun). If I were to generalize their behavior, I would say they are Pro-criminals.
I suggest instead of more gun laws, enforce the existing ones. They reply that is foolish, that more laws are necessary because of gun show loopholes, etc. And again, I say let's enforce the existing ones first, especially since the new laws can't stop what has already happened. And again, they think more laws are important- more laws which won't be enforced. One person even said there are too many prisoners! What kind of excuse is that?
My point is, if a person that is anti-gun does not feel enforcement comes before more laws, and that no one should have guns, they must be Pro-criminal. They don't want criminals to go to jail, nor do they want criminals to be shot when comitting a crime. I just don't get it. If you want violence to decrease, you have to get the criminals off the street. Bottom line.
I suggest instead of more gun laws, enforce the existing ones. They reply that is foolish, that more laws are necessary because of gun show loopholes, etc. And again, I say let's enforce the existing ones first, especially since the new laws can't stop what has already happened. And again, they think more laws are important- more laws which won't be enforced. One person even said there are too many prisoners! What kind of excuse is that?
My point is, if a person that is anti-gun does not feel enforcement comes before more laws, and that no one should have guns, they must be Pro-criminal. They don't want criminals to go to jail, nor do they want criminals to be shot when comitting a crime. I just don't get it. If you want violence to decrease, you have to get the criminals off the street. Bottom line.